“Further research is needed” is a common statement, rarely followed by specifics. What research? Why? How?
Photograph: Alamy

I studied science at university, as is required for anyone who wants to be a scientist. Trouble is, at the start of my degree at least, I wasn’t a great student. I’d just moved from the tiny village where I’d grown up, so I was frantically trying to figure out how to be an independent adult in the wider world, let alone a capable neuroscientist. So, when faced with essays, practical reports and other mandatory assignments, I fell back on the centuries-old technique favoured by students the world over: make stuff up in an attempt to sound clever.

I can’t remember most of my wilder claims, but I once stated that Phineas Gage “technically invented the lobotomy”. This logic no doubt seems profound to a persistently hungover 19-year-old, although I doubt my long-suffering markers saw the funny side.

However, now I’m the one doing the marking, and while all my current students are marvellous individuals with working internet connections and the ability to read this, in previous years I’ve been very reassured by seeing countless students try the same tactics as me, proving I wasn’t some lone dunce amongst geniuses (I’ve since found out this feeling is also very common).

I’m amazed at my ignorance and arrogance, thinking I could fool experienced scientists that I knew what I was talking about. In turn, I confess I’ve marked some submissions that left me quite stunned with their audacity/cluelessness. For instance, one report on a study into the motion aftereffect (involving measuring the vision in both eyes separately) ended with the very profound-sounding claim that “it is often wrongly believed that the eye that is open is the one we see with”.

For the record, this belief is not wrong. It is far from wrong.

Also, a tip for science students; when asked to critically assess a published study, try to refrain from describing the investigator as “unbelievably stupid”, “clearly an idiot” or “basically a monster”. I’ve seen all these used. Criticism is a key element of modern science, but at least try to keep it professional.

However, some tactics are far more predictable, possibly a result of the more rigid methods and requirements of science. One of the more well-known of these is students ending reports or essays on scientific studies, principles or theories by saying “more research is needed”, or some variation thereof.

Countless science students end up using this pseudo-insightful conclusion this at some point, often for good reason. Firstly, it’s invariably correct: you seldom get any scientific study which is both completely comprehensive and conclusive, so there’s always scope for more research. Even something as familiar and established as Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity is still being researched a century later.

“We’ve uncovered the secrets of the universe itself. Can we stop now?”
“No. More research is needed.”
“But we’ve figured out the whole univ-”
“MORE RESEARCH IS NEEDED!” Photograph: Julian Stratenschulte/EPA

Secondly, it implies the student is aware of limitations and the wider gaps in the field, and is also willing/able to criticise more established scientists, but without being specific (or directly insulting) in any way.

The problem is that it’s essentially meaningless. Unless a paper or study claims to answer a specific question once and for all and with absolute certainty, more research will always be needed. Saying “more research is needed” at the end of a science report is like saying “we can be sure Shakespeare wrote some plays” at the end of a literature essay: nobody doubts it, it might sound profound, but it isn’t. Students would be advised to think twice before concluding a submission with it, because you won’t be the first to have done so. It’s a habit that some carry on in to professional science careers.

However, perhaps this advice is too narrow-minded? It’s true that the “more research needed” claim has been co-opted somewhat by proponents and advocates of alternative medicine, whenever a study finds that their chosen remedy doesn’t have any noticeable effects. It’s common for alt-med enthusiasts to state that more research is needed, because they’re convinced there is an effect, it just hasn’t been found yet. Sadly, science doesn’t work that way.

But if you apply it to other contexts and occurrences of modern life, it actually makes a lot more sense. An alarming amount, if anything.

A major newspaper claims something “causes cancer”? More research is needed.

It seems that reminding yourself and others to do just a little more research before deciding something is a fact would benefit almost everyone in any situation. The only exception seems to be in scientific write-ups, which is the only place where it seems to occur.

Why is this? I don’t know. Continued investigations are required.

Dean Burnett invites you to see first-hand just how much more research he should do by buying his first book The Idiot Brain, all about how ridiculous and fallible the human brain is. Alternatively, just follow him on Twitter, @garwboy.